Top U.S. Military Officer: Iran Is In a Shooting War With America. OK, Where’s the Policy Response?

[Kuciwalker]

You forgot Saudia Arabia/etc.

JM

No one is shooting at the soldiers in Saudi Arabia.

[Jon Miller]

No one is shooting at the soldiers in Saudi Arabia.

It is the reason that Bin Laden said they did 9.11. Considering that killed 3000+ people and took away many of our rights, I would say it is pretty important.

JM

[Cort Haus]

Taliban didn't do 9.11

[Jon Miller]

I changed it to Bin Laden, I didn't remember the name Al Queda when I was writing the post.

BTW, here is one of the major causes (as determined 5 years ago):
"US foreign policies in the middle east, in particular its support of Israel. By Bin Laden’s own account, this is why al Qaeda is attacking America. His critique has never been cultural; he never mentions Madonna, Hollywood, homosexuality or drugs in his diatribes. US support for Israel, especially the support it gave to Israel’s invasion of southern Lebanon in 1982, first triggered Bin Laden’s anti-Americanism, which during the 1980s took the form of urging a boycott of US goods. He was later outraged by the “defiling” export of 500,000 US troops to Saudi Arabia after Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990."

JM

[Arrian]

Kuci

-Arrian

[Zevico]

Two fallacies right there.

Firstly, democratic countries do tend to go to war a hell of a lot and with disastrous consequences, especially when driven by either neo-cons or liberal humanitarian warriors (I can hardly tell the difference, tbh). These architects of slaughter and mayhem don't seem to think of their actions as warlike in precisely the same way as Islamic Fundies believe themselves to be delivering peace on earth once everyone has been persuaded to submit to Allah (and presumably the correct demoninational flavouring of submission).

True. It would be better to restate the definition as (1) "Democracies do not often war with one another [bolded addition]" (2) therefore we should encourage democratic movements to arise. However the neoconservative argument still has problems as will be seen below.

Secondly, democracy has to be something achieved by the people, not imposed by an elite - and especially not by foreign invaders.

True, but these are merely two methods of encouraging democracy to arise. The assertion you put forward does not constitute a full answer to the second proposition discussed above. It is equally possible, for example, to fund and support a genuine grassroots democratic movement, or genuine government-in-exile (e.g. as in WWII), on neoconservative grounds, and this would not necessarily involve the creation of a weak, elite-only democracy, or a Chalabi-style elite for hire.

Lastly, even a democratic movement can be vigorously anti-Western, which (itself) brings up issues of whether it is in the West's interests to support those movements, as quite plainly, that could also lead to anti-Western hostility and conflict. This is possibly an actual fallacy in neoconservative thinking: viz (1) it is not always true that democracies do not war with one another; (2) when they do it is a question of the circumstances of the relationship between them. So, in other words, to support every democratic movement, merely because they are democratic, can lead to conflict between these prospective democratic movements and their Western enablers.

[Zevico]

I changed it to Bin Laden, I didn't remember the name Al Queda when I was writing the post.

BTW, here is one of the major causes (as determined 5 years ago):
"US foreign policies in the middle east, in particular its support of Israel. By Bin Laden’s own account, this is why al Qaeda is attacking America. His critique has never been cultural; he never mentions Madonna, Hollywood, homosexuality or drugs in his diatribes. US support for Israel, especially the support it gave to Israel’s invasion of southern Lebanon in 1982, first triggered Bin Laden’s anti-Americanism, which during the 1980s took the form of urging a boycott of US goods. He was later outraged by the “defiling” export of 500,000 US troops to Saudi Arabia after Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990."

JM

If it isn't a cultural critique I don't know what is. To separate culture from politics when dealing with Bin Laden is like saying that the particular support of the Pashtun tribe for the Taliban is mere coincidence that has nothing to do with their particular culture and beliefs, which lead them to support "holy wars", and to deny allegiance to those other than their tribal leaders (as opposed to a central government, whether Pakistani or Afghan).
Bin Laden's opposition to Saudi Arabia came because the US defiled Muslim land by merely stepping onto it.
Why is that?
(a) because he disagreed with the very notion of helping Saudi Arabia against Saddam's Iraq; or
(B) because he thought the US were infidels who would corrupt the holiest place in Islam.

It's not (a), because he personally offered the protection of the "mujahadeen" to Saudi Arabia in lieu of American support.
It is (b), not because it "must" be--this isn't a dichotomous choice--but because that was precisely how Bin Laden himself described it.

[Zevico]

Not when the costs massively outweigh the gains. We can eliminate the threat by not walking down this particular dark alley each night. That's cheaper and easier than becoming Batman.



There is precisely one policy at fault for putting American citizens at risk of harm, and that is the policy of having soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To assert that there is a policy "at fault for putting American citizens at risk of harm" is not the same as asserting that there is a solution to the same involving nothing more than reversing the policy.
Iran will go against American interests whether or not you are in Iraq. It will do so violently if its leaders think violence will work, and it is the task of the United States' government to dissuade it from doing so to the extent possible. Each of the methods prescribed by the author aim to do exactly that.
If you don't think Iran is a threat and will be a threat in its future, how do you take account of the fact that its rallying cry is "Death to the Great Satan/America"? How do you take account of the fact that its regime is geared towards and supportive of a conflict with the United States, and that it is convinced that eventually it will emerge victorious in that conflict? By asserting that US interests won't be harmed after a pullout? Doesn't the US actually have other interests in the region? Won't those interests be harmed in the event of a stronger Iran?

[dannubis]

Who are you to deny the Iranians the right of a "stronger" Iran ? (Whatever that may be).

[Zevico]

Who are you to deny the Iranians the right of a "stronger" Iran ? (Whatever that may be).

I take it you are actuallly asking "why deny the Iranians the right of a "stronger" Iran."

In which case, I need only refer you to the fact that Iran is funding and allying with American enemies everywhere, and its aim in so doing is to weaken the United States and Western democratic countries (Australia included) politically, economically and otherwise. So yes, weakening it is a matter in which every democratic state should be concerned.

[dannubis]

No I asked:

Who are you to deny the Iranians the right of a "stronger" Iran ? (Whatever that may be).

[Kuciwalker]

To assert that there is a policy "at fault for putting American citizens at risk of harm" is not the same as asserting that there is a solution to the same involving nothing more than reversing the policy.

In this case it is! I openly assert that!

[DinoDoc]

No I asked:

A hostile power.